Abstract
Large-scale village relocation and urbanization, one of the most significant social changes in China, bring villages both development opportunities and social risks. The social risks mainly stem from the government’s strong position in land expropriation and policy preference for urban development. We observe the amalgamation of Anyang and Bomu Village in China and explore the specific role of land policies in the social change and restructuring of the two villages. We find that clan gentries challenge the government’s “absolute” authority over land and landless villagers start the trend of “de-urbanization.” Our research presents targeted policy recommendations in terms of weakening the role of the government in urbanization, strengthening dialogues between the government and clans and coordinating urban and rural land use.
Highlights
China, the most populous developing country in the world, has been implementing a National Scheme of Village Relocation and Urbanization since the beginning of the 1980s which imposed a large-scale and continuous rural land expropriation and exercised unified rural planning to achieve rapid urbanization
Based on our observation and discussion, we present targeted policy recommendations in terms of reducing the role of the government in urbanization, strengthening dialogues between the government and clans and coordinating urban and rural land use
What deserves our further investigation are some default or acquiescent notions that guide the current land policies in urbanization
Summary
The most populous developing country in the world, has been implementing a National Scheme of Village Relocation and Urbanization since the beginning of the 1980s which imposed a large-scale and continuous rural land expropriation and exercised unified rural planning to achieve rapid urbanization. In its first stage (1980–1990), the scheme encouraged rural-to-urban migration to solve the problem of employment of surplus rural labor and raise farmers’ income At this stage, only labor mobility was involved and the size or the number of cities of various scales remain unchanged. In the second stage (1991–2000), the scheme encourages the rapid development of township enterprises (especially those in coastal areas), which attracted skilled migrant farmers to return to towns and villages from cities. This has caused the expansion of the area of towns and decline in the number of villages. In the third stage (2001–present), the scheme supports the expansion and development of towns, cities, metropolis and megalopolis and a large number of villages are merged [1,2]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
